Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Age of Imperialism

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Show only dev responses
Originally posted by Bakito
Amric: You're right of course, all of them are nations in their own way. But the hole thing is about EU2 having limited number of country tags. That is why some nations have to be removed in order to make more than a few new ones. And when you look at the nations in game, I'm sure you'll have to admit that the Native American nations are the first ones to go considering the game mechanics... they just are the least important ones. Anyway, there's an interesting conversation about "What's a country?" in this thread: http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=56737
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll let go of most of the NA "nations". But I truly believe that the Cherokee are as qualified as the Iroquios. The Cherokee were the only NA nation that developed it's own written language. The Iroquios never did it. Granted the Cherokee did it AFTER the US was around and after the hideous Trail of Tears atrocity. But it is STILL a great accomplishment.
Plus, the Cherokee had a set of "laws" that were more advanced than the Iroquios. Plus the Cherokee were part of the 5 nations that included the Iroquios.
 
Originally posted by Bakito
In my opinion there should only be two nations in north america, the iroquois and the cherokee, so I think you can remove all the others... :cool:
Click to expand...

As you can see I agree with you Amric. Actually I would like to see more NA countries in game, but most of the mods are concentrated in Europe so...
 
Well, as it is now I have actually just removed one NA country: Creek. And at the time being, I have no plans to remove more of them - unless I need a tag for a new country, but I already have one free tag...:)

As to the whole Dakota/Lakota thing: what would be the best name? I have already changed Lenape into Delaware, beacause Lenape is what they called themselves - Delaware is what the 'international community' called them. If all countries should be named what the countries themselves call them, it would be very confusing IMHO...:rolleyes:

Anyway, how about renaming them to Sioux?
 
Originally posted by Hive
Well, as it is now I have actually just removed one NA country: Creek. And at the time being, I have no plans to remove more of them - unless I need a tag for a new country, but I already have one free tag...:)

As to the whole Dakota/Lakota thing: what would be the best name? I have already changed Lenape into Delaware, beacause Lenape is what they called themselves - Delaware is what the 'international community' called them. If all countries should be named what the countries themselves call them, it would be very confusing IMHO...:rolleyes:

Anyway, how about renaming them to Sioux?
Click to expand...

I'd rather see Lakota, but I >guess< I could live with Sioux:)


Bakito---Sorry, didn't realize that you were agreeing with me...
 
Originally posted by Bakito
Bah, you ought to thank us for bumping your thread. :p
Click to expand...

He he... you are quite right, there aren't exactly waves of people who has shown interest in my mod...

But that doesn't really distrub me, I have been working on this mod mostly for my own sake - as I know that I will love playing it. So it doesn't really matter that much if I'm the only one who likes it.:)

...but it would off course be nice if everyone loves it!:D
 
Originally posted by Hive
He he... you are quite right, there aren't exactly waves of people who has shown interest in my mod...

But that doesn't really distrub me, I have been working on this mod mostly for my own sake - as I know that I will love playing it. So it doesn't really matter that much if I'm the only one who likes it.:)

...but it would off course be nice if everyone loves it!:D
Click to expand...

I want to play it. I have to finish my current game that I am trying my first AAR writing about. Gee, that was a horrible sentence, but you know what I mean.
 
Yeah, I guess I'm gonna try it too. But I'm not sure if I can ever play the whole 500 years scenario, I have difficulty finishing the regular Grand Campaign.
 
Originally posted by Bakito
Yeah, I guess I'm gonna try it too. But I'm not sure if I can ever play the whole 500 years scenario, I have difficulty finishing the regular Grand Campaign.
Click to expand...

lol, yes it's a looong scenario if you play the 1419 campaign (which I call Age of Rennaisance). But you can always play the 1816 scenario or maybe 1700 for a longer game.
 
Yep, maybe I'll just start with those shorter scenarios, but usually I get so excited and start the longest possible scenario and get bored before I get to finish it... :(
 
Originally posted by Amric
Okay, I'll let go of most of the NA "nations". But I truly believe that the Cherokee are as qualified as the Iroquios. The Cherokee were the only NA nation that developed it's own written language. The Iroquios never did it. Granted the Cherokee did it AFTER the US was around and after the hideous Trail of Tears atrocity. But it is STILL a great accomplishment.
Plus, the Cherokee had a set of "laws" that were more advanced than the Iroquios. Plus the Cherokee were part of the 5 nations that included the Iroquios.
Click to expand...

The last bit isn't right. The Tuscarora who were from the same area as the Cherokee, were the sixth nation in the Iroquois confederacy. Along with (if I remember correctly) Mohawk, Oneida, Seneca, Onondaga and Cayuga.

I do agree that the Cherokee have a better claim than most (say Lenape and Huron), but I think the Creek had quite a bit of infrastructure too.
 
Originally posted by Isaac Brock
The last bit isn't right. The Tuscarora who were from the same area as the Cherokee, were the sixth nation in the Iroquois confederacy. Along with (if I remember correctly) Mohawk, Oneida, Seneca, Onondaga and Cayuga.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking... but wasn't sure about it. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Having worked a lot on this timeperiod, I am eager to see how Paradox will handle it in Victoria. But to be honest, I was actually happy when I saw that it won't be out anytime soon - as I then have a change to complete mine first...:rolleyes: :D
 
just a note

In my own version of the grand campaign I removed all of the nations from the Americas and non-muslism Africa, which frees up a number of tags. In their place I put in 'natives' with a variety of aggression levels depending on historical accounts of their actions.

The only effect this had on the game was to allow the European nations to colonize in a more historical fashion. Yep, that's right: removing the American and African 'nations' actually improved European colonization efforts and allowed them to do so in a fashion that conforms more closely to historical efforts.

So if you need tags you can just eliminate all of these nations without any fear of unbalancing the game.

Max
 
Re: just a note

Originally posted by maxpublic
In my own version of the grand campaign I removed all of the nations from the Americas and non-muslism Africa, which frees up a number of tags. In their place I put in 'natives' with a variety of aggression levels depending on historical accounts of their actions.

The only effect this had on the game was to allow the European nations to colonize in a more historical fashion. Yep, that's right: removing the American and African 'nations' actually improved European colonization efforts and allowed them to do so in a fashion that conforms more closely to historical efforts.

So if you need tags you can just eliminate all of these nations without any fear of unbalancing the game.

Max
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was my initial thought as well. But as of now, I don't need any new tags (well, I there are in fact more countries I could add, but I have chosen not to...). But when I - sometime in the future - begins on my 1337 scenario, I will definately need more tags (and lots of them), and then I promise that more pagans will be removed!;)
 
Just as I was about to complete AoI, I decided for some more changes - this time to the 1492 scenario. I am going to be removing some French cb shields and add them by events instead, and I will give Bearn to Navarra as well. These changes seem to be kinda popular to make these days, as I have seen them in other mods. So nothing new there.

The thing that makes my 1492 distinguishable form theirs is what I am going to do with Spain. I haven't seen anyone else do these changes, which is pretty huge if I may say so. If anyone can guess what these changes to Spain involve, such a brilliant mind will be invited to be a Knight at my quadrant table at Hivealon!:p

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back